Donor Information in Research and Drug Evaluation with Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs)

Overview

Journal Stem Cell Res Ther

Publisher Biomed Central

Date 2020 Mar 21

PMID 32192531

Citations 3

Authors

Marcin Orzechowski

Maximilian Schochow

Michael Kuhl

Florian Steger

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) opened the possibilities for reprogramming cells back to a pluripotent state. Because of no apparent ethical issues connected with donation and derivation of biomaterial, iPSCs are considered as a research alternative to ethically highly disputed human embryonic stem cells (hESCs). However, the unique character of iPSCs leads to numerous ethical considerations, which mainly concern the issue of donor information and consent for the use of biospecimen in research and drug evaluation.

Methods: For the purpose of this analysis, we conducted a review of the literature in the PubMed/MEDLINE and Web of Science databases. The search algorithm led to the identification of 1461 results. After removing duplicates and screening of title and abstract, 90 articles were found to be relevant to the study's objective. Full texts of these articles were apprised and 62 articles were excluded at this step for not properly addressing the study's objective. In the final step, 28 articles were included in the analysis. Analyzed were both research and non-research manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals.

Results: In the case of iPSC research, the information process should be guided by general frameworks established for research on human subjects but also by specific characteristics of iPSCs. We determined four main domains and 12 thematic subdomains that should be included in donor information. Our results show that majority of authors agree to the content of information with regard to the areas of general information, storage of cells, and protection of privacy. Two main issues that are discussed in the literature are donor's consent for use in future studies and the process of donor information.

Conclusions: Given the unique character of iPSCs and the possibility of their various uses in the future, the content of donor information should contain specific information central to iPSC research. Effective methods of communicating information to donors should combine written and oral information with the possible use of multimedia.

Citing Articles

Considerations for the development of iPSC-derived cell therapies: a review of key challenges by the JSRM-ISCT iPSC Committee.

Madrid M, Lakshmipathy U, Zhang X, Bharti K, Wall D, Sato Y Cytotherapy. 2024; 26(11):1382-1399.

PMID: 38958627 PMC: 11471376. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcyt.2024.05.022.

Ethical Aspects of Human Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Alzheimer's Disease: Potentials and Challenges of a Seemingly Harmless Method.

Kropf M J Alzheimers Dis Rep. 2023; 7(1):993-1006.

PMID: 37849627 PMC: 10578332. DOI: 10.3233/ADR-230018.

Content and Method of Information for Participants in Clinical Studies With Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells (iPSCs).

Orzechowski M, Schochow M, Kuhl M, Steger F Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021; 9:627816.

PMID: 33996790 PMC: 8113756. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.627816.

References

McCaughey T, Chen C, De Smit E, Rees G, Fenwick E, Kearns L . Participant understanding and recall of informed consent for induced pluripotent stem cell biobanking. Cell Tissue Bank. 2016; 17(3):449-56. DOI: 10.1007/s10561-016-9563-8. View

Toraldo D, Toraldo S, Conte L . The Clinical Use of Stem Cell Research in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Critical Analysis of Current Policies. J Clin Med Res. 2018; 10(9):671-678. PMC: 6089575. DOI: 10.14740/jocmr3484w. View

Larkey L, Staten L, Ritenbaugh C, Hall R, Buller D, Bassford T . Recruitment of Hispanic women to the Women's Health Initiative. the case of Embajadoras in Arizona. Control Clin Trials. 2002; 23(3):289-98. DOI: 10.1016/s0197-2456(02)00190-3. View

Dathatri S, Gruberg L, Anand J, Romeiser J, Sharma S, Finnin E . Informed consent for cardiac procedures: deficiencies in patient comprehension with current methods. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 97(5):1505-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.12.065. View

Morrison M, Bell J, George C, Harmon S, Munsie M, Kaye J . The European General Data Protection Regulation: challenges and considerations for iPSC researchers and biobanks. Regen Med. 2017; 12(6):693-703. PMC: 5857917. DOI: 10.2217/rme-2017-0068. View

Khan A, Capps B, Sum M, Kuswanto C, Sim K . Informed consent for human genetic and genomic studies: a systematic review. Clin Genet. 2014; 86(3):199-206. DOI: 10.1111/cge.12384. View

Cyranoski D . 'Reprogrammed' stem cells approved to mend human hearts for the first time. Nature. 2018; 557(7707):619-620. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-05278-8. View

Sugarman J . Human stem cell ethics: beyond the embryo. Cell Stem Cell. 2008; 2(6):529-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2008.05.005. View

Martins Fernandes Paes B, Moco P, Pereira C, Porto G, de Sousa Russo E, Junqueira Reis L . Ten years of iPSC: clinical potential and advances in vitro hematopoietic differentiation. Cell Biol Toxicol. 2017; 33(3):233-250. DOI: 10.1007/s10565-016-9377-2. View

10.

Topolovec-Vranic J, Natarajan K . The Use of Social Media in Recruitment for Medical Research Studies: A Scoping Review. J Med Internet Res. 2016; 18(11):e286. PMC: 5118584. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5698. View

11.

Isasi R, Andrews P, Baltz J, Bredenoord A, Burton P, Chiu I . Identifiability and privacy in pluripotent stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell. 2014; 14(4):427-30. PMC: 4815907. DOI: 10.1016/j.stem.2014.03.014. View

12.

Lomax G, Hull S, Lowenthal J, Rao M, Isasi R . The DISCUSS Project: induced pluripotent stem cell lines from previously collected research biospecimens and informed consent: points to consider. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2013; 2(10):727-30. PMC: 3785257. DOI: 10.5966/sctm.2013-0099. View

13.

Okita K, Matsumura Y, Sato Y, Okada A, Morizane A, Okamoto S . A more efficient method to generate integration-free human iPS cells. Nat Methods. 2011; 8(5):409-12. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.1591. View

14.

Garber K . RIKEN suspends first clinical trial involving induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2015; 33(9):890-1. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0915-890. View

15.

Hansson M, Dillner J, Bartram C, Carlson J, Helgesson G . Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research?. Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7(3):266-9. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(06)70618-0. View

16.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151(4):264-9, W64. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. View

17.

Househ M, Grainger R, Petersen C, Bamidis P, Merolli M . Balancing Between Privacy and Patient Needs for Health Information in the Age of Participatory Health and Social Media: A Scoping Review. Yearb Med Inform. 2018; 27(1):29-36. PMC: 6115243. DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1641197. View

18.

Caulfield T, Scott C, Hyun I, Lovell-Badge R, Kato K, Zarzeczny A . Stem cell research policy and iPS cells. Nat Methods. 2009; 7(1):28-33. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.f.282. View

19.

Takahashi K, Yamanaka S . Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006; 126(4):663-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.07.024. View

20.

Wertheimer A, Miller F . Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?. J Med Ethics. 2008; 34(5):389-92. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2007.021857. View